The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

Itís no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 150
  1. #76
    Wrecker of Homes d'Anconia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    5,974
    Jazere80 if you ask me, the fact of the matter is that inclines did not make your upper (clavicular) chest grow faster than the lower (sternal) chest. I don't really think this study gives a clearly defined winner.
    Honestly as far as I'm concerned flat bench hits both heads anyway.
    ...........||High School||.....||July '05||.......||January '09||
    Bench.........225x1...............275x1.................?
    Squat...........?.......................?....................365x5
    Deadlift........?.....................315x5...............435x5
    Weight........180...................192...................185
    BF%.............?......................12.....................12
    Time to Get Ripped
    Pictures of Me

  2. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by fatrb38
    Jazere80 if you ask me, the fact of the matter is that inclines did not make your upper (clavicular) chest grow faster than the lower (sternal) chest. I don't really think this study gives a clearly defined winner.
    Honestly as far as I'm concerned flat bench hits both heads anyway.
    1) how can you say that for sure, given that teh study you just posted said there was emphasis on one part of hte chest versus the other?

    2) how can you say it doesn't give a clearly defined answer when in your last post you said
    Quote Originally Posted by fatrb38
    I think this kinda settles the debate:
    http://www.angelfire.com/tx/APATX/ar...nch_Press.html

  3. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by Belial
    You're correct. In that you are wrong.

    Soreness the day of and the day after a workout is usually the result of damage, and it's certainly possible to damage one part of a muscle more than another; this can be caused simply by unfavorable joint angles or excessive stretch. However, damage alone is not enough to cause hypertrophy; the adaptation process is far more complicated and involves quite a few factors. (As I'm sure you know).

    Lactic acid buildup soreness is the "burn" that you feel in a worked muscle, and this will certainly occur across the entire muscle as stores and byproducts are distributed around the various tissues in the area. Acute lactic acid burn doesn't usually last long past the workout, and lactic acid burn during a set will not likely be restricted to one part of a muscle over another. Even if you would be mechanically affecting one part of a muscle more than another, the work being done by all the motor units in a muscle is the same, regardless of which ones are operating in more favorable planes of motion for a given lift.

    Also... as a final point. The clavicular (or clavical) head of the pectoralis major is not engaged any more than the sternal during incline benching. Just because you are moving a weight more in the direction of your head does not mean that the upper part of the chest is any more favorably angled for this purpose. Any change across the sagittal plane requires additional muscles; in the case of incline bench it is the anterior deltoid that provides the necessary vertical "vector" to move the weight from your chest to above your head. The clavicular head of the pectoralis major is simply too small and too poorly positioned to make it a significant contributor to this change in angle.

    And I kinda think your chest looks the same.
    i'm afraid i don't fully understand your rebuttal. what i am saying is that the soreness results from the specific stress put on a muscle. if i can get sore on a specific part of a muscle, then it seems i put stress on only part of it. if it is possible to put stress on only 1 part and not the rest through a particular movement, how can that not allow the kind of stress i'm looking for to be emphasized on part of the muscle only?

  4. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    0
    what belial is saying is that even though you feel it in the 'upper' chest it doesn't mean anything in relation to upper chest growth. This debate could go on for years, this should be closed soon

  5. #80
    Wrecker of Homes d'Anconia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by jazer80
    1) how can you say that for sure, given that teh study you just posted said there was emphasis on one part of hte chest versus the other?

    2) how can you say it doesn't give a clearly defined answer when in your last post you said
    Bro and who would you say was the winner. Can one make their upper chest grow relative to their lower chest? All it said was there was insignificant differences between incline and flat with regards to the clavicular head.

    Also I was saying that in your pics, to me, it didn't look like your upper chest grew faster than your lower chest.
    ...........||High School||.....||July '05||.......||January '09||
    Bench.........225x1...............275x1.................?
    Squat...........?.......................?....................365x5
    Deadlift........?.....................315x5...............435x5
    Weight........180...................192...................185
    BF%.............?......................12.....................12
    Time to Get Ripped
    Pictures of Me

  6. #81
    Cardio bunny Alex.V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Duke
    Posts
    41
    Wow. Didn't expect a post like this from you, man.

    Quote Originally Posted by xMeat_Headx
    Damage is a BIG part of the adaption process. A bigger and stronger muscle takes less damage, right? Therefore, getting bigger and stronger is part of an adaption to muscle damage/micro trauma/metabolic toxin buildup or whatever you want to call it. Its not the only part, but its significant. If not, no one would do slow negatives and no one would utilize a full range of motion.

    If you can damage one head of a muscle more than another, that head is obviously doing more work. If it is doing more work, the stimulus to get bigger and stronger is greater comparatively. Case in point? You can hit the anterior head of your deltoids more effectively than the posterior head with overhead presses. Yet the deltoids all origionate from the same general area(like pecs).
    Damage is a result of training, but alone is NOT sufficient for adaptation. The pain caused by microtears is not any indication of propensity for hypertrophy. It is simply an indication of, well, damage. Damage does result in growth, but only because the damage causes a cascade of hormones and prostaglandins (among other factors) that actually cause the synthesis of new contractile proteins, an increase in mitochondrial density, etc. You didn't seem to get my point... soreness alone is NO indicator of growth. Soreness simply indicates a certain level of trauma, which may or may not indicate that the muscle has been stimulated to grow. Damage is the catalyst, but the strongest theories suggest other training factors are essential, including depletion of stores, etc. I'd like to say I know exactly what's involved, but that would make me the first on this planet. So I can't. But it simply boils down to this: If significant damage was necessary and sufficient for growth, you could simply stretch your way to hypertrophy.

    As far as the deltoid goes, excellent point. But the muscle innervation is different; in this case that stands to reason as contraction of the posterior requires a relaxation of the anterior and vice versa. This would not be possible if the innervation were the same. The pectoralis group has no such special requirement. The mistake is to think that sharing an insertion means sharing function, or that having separate insertions entails different functions. Unless there is a sea change in the basic theory of muscle function, I will maintain my position here. If proven wrong, I'll be the first to admit it... I debate these topics to get at the truth, not stand on what I've read so far.

    There is no proof for this... ZERO. Until you find proof, this argument holds no more weight than the counter-argument.
    I'm sorry, you're asking for proof of biomechanics. Create a free body diagram, draw the pictures yourself, create a model, but certainly don't ask me for proof of something that's self-evident. The change in angle does not correspond to an increase in usage for a muscle with the clavicular head's insertion, considering they both activate concurrently. There is little evidence to back up the converse, so I'll be content to accept the theory until proven wrong. Shaky EMG studies are not enough, I'll wait on definitive proof from in vivo stimulation that you can both engage the clavicular head without engaging the sternal, and that the ten degree path differential from the origin to insertion on the clavicular head (versus the upper fibers of the sternal head) make a significant difference on a 30+ degree incline bench (especially considering the small size of the muscle).


    Considering that the clavicular head inserts HIGHER and further over on the shoulder than the sternal head, and that it attaches HIGHER on the sternum than the sternal head, it makes perfect sense that any motion involving pulling the arms together in line with where the clavicular fibers attach and origionate would utilize the fibers that have the favorable line of pull most, as opposed to the fibers that have a favorable line of pull when pulling your arms together downward across your chest/abs.
    Utilize the fibers the most? But this counters the all or nothing standard of muscle/motor unit contraction (that does have plenty of evidence). You can increase the demand on certain fibers, but you cannot increase the force produced relative to other motor units with the same innervation. Now, if you want to go back to damage = growth, then so be it.


    That's a ludicrous statement. That's assuming everyone has the same biomechanics and everyone uses powerlifting bench press form on incline bench presses. If you cock your elbows out, arch your back, and maintain that form the pecs are very active in incline lifts. Are the deltoids more involved in incline lifts than flat or decline lifts? Sure, a little. Does that mean they aren't a great pec exercise? Hell nah.
    You completely misunderstood, and it's honestly a little irritating. You're calling basic biomechanics ludicrous. This has nothing to do with same or different structures in different people. It is, once again, a fundamental property of the structure of the human body. When a single muscle group is contracted, it will pull in one direction, and in one direction only. Modifying this direction requires the use of additional surrounding muscle groups. If you were to artificially stimulate the nerves that contract the pectoralis major, and the pectoralis major only, the arms would move in the same manner every single time. To change their movement, you would have to engage surrounding groups... the deltoids to bring them further towards the head, the lattisimus dorsi and other muscles to push them further down. (yes, proximal, distal, pfft). This does not mean the chest is not contracting and contributing significantly, but its contributing vector becomes increasingly irrelevant as angle changes.

    You can cock your elbows out and arch your back all you like, and you'll notice more chest engagement and less deltoid. But this is simply because you're putting the movement more in line with the pectoralis group's natural path.


    Jazer: I did summarize it above in the first section. Let me know if I'm still not making my point clearly.
    "Except Belial. He knows everything. This isn't a sarcastic attack, either. He really knows everything." -----Organichu
    "Alex is all knowing and perfect"-----Jane (loosely paraphrased)
    -515/745/700 bench/deadlift/squat
    Current mile time: 4:23
    Marathons: 3
    Century races: 3
    Ironmans: 1
    Ultramarathons: 1
    Current supps: http://www.atlargenutrition.com/prod...covery/results

  7. #82
    Senior Member Meat_Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Belial
    Wow. Didn't expect a post like this from you, man.

    Damage is a result of training, but alone is NOT sufficient for adaptation. The pain caused by microtears is not any indication of propensity for hypertrophy. It is simply an indication of, well, damage. Damage does result in growth, but only because the damage causes a cascade of hormones and prostaglandins (among other factors) that actually cause the synthesis of new contractile proteins, an increase in mitochondrial density, etc.
    "Damage does result in growth"

    It may be the reactions damage sets off that cause growth, but the damage you do to your muscle through heavy work is a major source of growth and a significant source of strength gains.

    You didn't seem to get my point... soreness alone is NO indicator of growth. Soreness simply indicates a certain level of trauma, which may or may not indicate that the muscle has been stimulated to grow.
    I understand, I've done plenty of productive workouts that haven't made me sore at all. But that was always a result of me being used to the exercises/volume/intensity. That is, any good weightlifting routine WILL cause soreness, at least after the 1-3rd workout. Then you get used to it, your body makes adaptions, and the same workout doesn't get you noticably sore until you change something up.

    Damage is the catalyst, but the strongest theories suggest other training factors are essential, including depletion of stores, etc. I'd like to say I know exactly what's involved, but that would make me the first on this planet. So I can't. But it simply boils down to this: If significant damage was necessary and sufficient for growth, you could simply stretch your way to hypertrophy.
    That's true, but I'm not arguing that damage was the only catalyst to growth, only one of them and a significant one at that.

    As far as the deltoid goes, excellent point. But the muscle innervation is different; in this case that stands to reason as contraction of the posterior requires a relaxation of the anterior and vice versa. This would not be possible if the innervation were the same. The pectoralis group has no such special requirement. The mistake is to think that sharing an insertion means sharing function, or that having separate insertions entails different functions. Unless there is a sea change in the basic theory of muscle function, I will maintain my position here. If proven wrong, I'll be the first to admit it... I debate these topics to get at the truth, not stand on what I've read so far.
    The deltoids weren't really a good muscle to use as an example. They are too complex and further seperated than the pecs, as you elaborated on. Try the antagonist to the pecs, the traps. They are very similar in function and shape, yet no one would argue that shrugs hit ALL of the traps. They emphasize the upper trapezius fibers(Traps I and II), while movement involving heavy downward retraction of the traps emphasize the lower fibers(Traps III and IV). The insertions and attachments do span a larger area, but they are still alike in shape and function... that proves that sharing or having seperate insertion and attachment points does indeed make a difference in function.

    I'm sorry, you're asking for proof of biomechanics. Create a free body diagram, draw the pictures yourself, create a model, but certainly don't ask me for proof of something that's self-evident. The change in angle does not correspond to an increase in usage for a muscle with the clavicular head's insertion, considering they both activate concurrently. There is little evidence to back up the converse, so I'll be content to accept the theory until proven wrong. Shaky EMG studies are not enough, I'll wait on definitive proof from in vivo stimulation that you can both engage the clavicular head without engaging the sternal, and that the ten degree path differential from the origin to insertion on the clavicular head (versus the upper fibers of the sternal head) make a significant difference on a 30+ degree incline bench (especially considering the small size of the muscle).
    No way I'm arguing that you can engage the clavicular head without the sternal, except in one function/movement:

    Pectoralis major (clavicular head) functions:

    Movement - Shoulder

    Transverse Flexion
    Transverse Adduction
    Internal Rotation
    Adduction
    Flexion
    Abduction

    Pectoralis major (sternal head) functions

    Movement - Shoulder

    Transverse Flexion
    Transverse Adduction
    Internal Rotation
    Adduction
    Extension

    Scapula - (Assists)

    Downward Rotation
    Depression
    Abduction (initial)

    Abduction = lateral raises, upright rows, overhead presses, and incline presses. Anything that involves the delts involves the CLAVICULAR pecs. Therefore, it makes sense that an exercise that involved some shoulder abduction AND transverse flexion/adduction would be the optimal exercise to utilize the clavicular pecs over the sternal pecs. Will the sternal pecs be working hard? Sure, but they aren't being emphasized, and at high levels of development the things you have emphasized in your training become very apparent.

    Utilize the fibers the most? But this counters the all or nothing standard of muscle/motor unit contraction (that does have plenty of evidence). You can increase the demand on certain fibers, but you cannot increase the force produced relative to other motor units with the same innervation. Now, if you want to go back to damage = growth, then so be it.
    My wording may have been a bit misleading, but what do you mean by you can increase the demand on certain fibers? Are you talking about fiber types (I, IIa, IIB) or fibers in terms of location?

    You completely misunderstood, and it's honestly a little irritating. You're calling basic biomechanics ludicrous. This has nothing to do with same or different structures in different people. It is, once again, a fundamental property of the structure of the human body. When a single muscle group is contracted, it will pull in one direction, and in one direction only. Modifying this direction requires the use of additional surrounding muscle groups.
    Sure, if you're already in movement modifying the direction of the movement does require the adjustment of stabilizers and secondary movers. However, when you have a bench to modify the direction of the contraction you're talking about a completely different thing.

    If you were to artificially stimulate the nerves that contract the pectoralis major, and the pectoralis major only, the arms would move in the same manner every single time. To change their movement, you would have to engage surrounding groups... the deltoids to bring them further towards the head, the lattisimus dorsi and other muscles to push them further down. (yes, proximal, distal, pfft). This does not mean the chest is not contracting and contributing significantly, but its contributing vector becomes increasingly irrelevant as angle changes.
    Again, while a more incline position might involve the deltoids more than more declined positions, it is because the deltoids have a more favorable line of pull in more inclined lifts. The lats are stabilizers in all bench presses. I don't understand how this myth that lats play a huge role in moving the bar, seeing as how the only functions of the lats are:

    Movement - Shoulder

    Adduction
    Extension
    Internal Rotation
    Transverse Extension

    Scapula - (Assists)

    Depression
    Downward Rotation
    Adduction

    Sure, if you go from a flat bench movement to a decline bench movement without changing the angle of the bench, you are using the lats to move the bar. Why are you using the lats? Because you're adducting your shoulder and doing a partial pullover.

    You can cock your elbows out and arch your back all you like, and you'll notice more chest engagement and less deltoid. But this is simply because you're putting the movement more in line with the pectoralis group's natural path.
    Bingo. What I'm saying is that the clavicular head of the pectoralis has a different natural path (across the upper chest) than the sternal pecs (across the lower chest/abs). The decline press, when performed with a full range of motion and proper form, utilizes the natural path of the sternal pecs optimally as the line of movement is from the insertion point to the attachment point(which is the bottom area of your breastbone). Proper flat bench press form does as well, as the big arch in your back makes the lift a decline press. In incline presses, when performed properly, the line of movement is from the insertion point across the chest to the attachment point(the upper breast bone).
    Last edited by Meat_Head; 03-27-2006 at 09:28 PM.
    Squat...Eat...Sleep...Grow...Repeat

  8. #83
    Cardio bunny Alex.V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Duke
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by xMeat_Headx
    "Damage does result in growth"

    It may be the reactions damage sets off that cause growth, but the damage you do to your muscle through heavy work is a major source of growth and a significant source of strength gains.
    Ok... you basically reiterated what I just said... I said damage was one first step in a chemical cascade that promotes hypertrophy. I don't quite see what you were replying to.


    That's true, but I'm not arguing that damage was the only catalyst to growth, only one of them and a significant one at that.
    Right, but in and of itself is not enough. Simply because part of a worked muscle has sustained more damage than another does not mean that part of the muscle will grow faster than the rest. If this were the case, repeated stress at specific angles could cause unfavorable adaptations that would result in eventual muscle deformity and loss of function. Imagine if one sector of a fan shaped muscle were to hypertrophy and another to atrophy. The muscle itself could no longer function in the manner it was intended as a portion of it would likely rupture when the entire muscle was contracted maximally against a heavy load.

    The deltoids weren't really a good muscle to use as an example. They are too complex and further seperated than the pecs, as you elaborated on. Try the antagonist to the pecs, the traps. They are very similar in function and shape, yet no one would argue that shrugs hit ALL of the traps. They emphasize the upper trapezius fibers(Traps I and II), while movement involving heavy downward retraction of the traps emphasize the lower fibers(Traps III and IV). The insertions and attachments do span a larger area, but they are still alike in shape and function... that proves that sharing or having seperate insertion and attachment points does indeed make a difference in function.
    True. Yet, again, there is a muscle group here where one action would seem to work at cross purposes with another, namely scapular elevation/depression. The nerves on the various parts of these muscles can also be activated independently in vivo.

    Actually, this brings up an interesting point about our artificial labeling of muscles in general. Really, it would make more sense to label muscles by innervation, not appearance, because of these situations. Granted, the names might not be as catchy (accessory nerve CN XI, cervical nerve 3, cervical nerve 4 is not a good name for the trapezius group) but possibly more accurate.

    But then you get into the problem of separate nerve activation. When maximal load is applied, certain nerves fire concurrently in selected muscle groups, while in others they can fire separately if needed.

    It's really a damn mess and we should all study philosophy instead. Or something similarly useless.




    Ok, I'm getting tired of quoting, and this is getting long.

    points to address:

    -By fibers, I mean fibers in a given region of a muscle, not fiber types.

    -"when you have a bench to modify the direction of the contraction you're talking about a completely different thing." Ok.... what would that different thing be?

    -The lats do not play a huge role in moving the bar away from the body, but they are vital in providing the vector needed to complete the lift properly and avoid having the bar land on your head during a decline bench. Which, again, is my point. A prime mover is just that, the prime mover that provides the main force vector in the direction of movement. The secondary movers and stabilizers provide different, usually smaller vectors. I got a little confused, since you say this:

    "I don't understand how this myth that lats play a huge role in moving the bar"

    then this:

    "
    Sure, if you go from a flat bench movement to a decline bench movement without changing the angle of the bench, you are using the lats to move the bar"

    -I never disagreed that the natural angle of movement of the humerus if acted upon solely by the clavicular head of the pectoralis major will be different than the movement if acted upon only by the sternal head. However, this becomes irrelevant due to points stated above, including:
    -a miniscule difference in angle
    -the inability to have the muscle act alone
    -the fact that all this is meaningless given the factors required for hypertrophy.



    I get the feeling that we're talking in circles, and it's getting slightly dull to me even though my other alternative is trying to fix the 30S ribosomal subunit secondary structure.

    We should just write an article and be done with it. Hit me up if you're interested in collaborating.
    "Except Belial. He knows everything. This isn't a sarcastic attack, either. He really knows everything." -----Organichu
    "Alex is all knowing and perfect"-----Jane (loosely paraphrased)
    -515/745/700 bench/deadlift/squat
    Current mile time: 4:23
    Marathons: 3
    Century races: 3
    Ironmans: 1
    Ultramarathons: 1
    Current supps: http://www.atlargenutrition.com/prod...covery/results

  9. #84
    Senior Member Meat_Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,315


    There's alot of info there that can't be argued with. As you said, we're not really going anywhere. Check your PM's
    Last edited by Meat_Head; 03-28-2006 at 01:34 PM.
    Squat...Eat...Sleep...Grow...Repeat

  10. #85
    Cardio bunny Alex.V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Duke
    Posts
    41
    Word, checked and replied.
    "Except Belial. He knows everything. This isn't a sarcastic attack, either. He really knows everything." -----Organichu
    "Alex is all knowing and perfect"-----Jane (loosely paraphrased)
    -515/745/700 bench/deadlift/squat
    Current mile time: 4:23
    Marathons: 3
    Century races: 3
    Ironmans: 1
    Ultramarathons: 1
    Current supps: http://www.atlargenutrition.com/prod...covery/results

  11. #86
    mrelwooddowd Patz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    BFE, KY
    Posts
    9,845
    Would the simplest way to put it be this..?

    No matter how much more ehphasis you can put on an area of a muscle in relation to another area of a muscle, it's not enugh for the brain to decide that the higher-stressed area needs more protein. It's not enough stress to make a difference, so that the body is going to step outside of the normal building process for the ENTIRE muscle. The over-stressed portion can only get as much nutritional love as the average-stressed portion, thereby resulting in equal growth.

    I've found that the body doesn't let us do anything completely stupid, with regard to putting on or taking off fat or muscle. We may be able to have chicken legs, but it's not gonna let us have a half-developed calf or something completely damaging to our functionality. We're not able to do 10,000 crunches for a 6 pack, while keeping fat thighs. If this was possible, all women would have skinny arms, a flat stomach, and a big ass. That simple fact pretty much controls this thought processes that you can't isolate part of a muscle. We are built to work, move, grow, and shrink a certain way. That's pretty much all there is to it.
    _________________________

    5/3/1 Journal


    http://http://www.wannabebig.com/for...83#post1766083

  12. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    0
    awesome summarization, elwood

  13. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by mrelwooddowd
    No matter how much more ehphasis you can put on an area of a muscle in relation to another area of a muscle, it's not enugh for the brain to decide that the higher-stressed area needs more protein.
    can you please elaborate this statement?

  14. #89
    is way too skinny!
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by ArchAngel777
    Is it just me, or do I not see a problem with the size of his chest in the first pics? As far as I am concerned, that is an excellent physique that I wouldn't want to touch.
    That is what I was about to say, your body is beautiful man, I am hoping to achieve such perfection like yours one day.
    Squat = Not enough
    DL = Not enough
    Bench = Not enough

    Big 3 = Not enough

  15. #90
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by jazer80
    can you please elaborate this statement?

    Just because you may be able to place more emphasis on a part of a muscle, that does not make that part grow faster. The muscle grows as a whole. Due to the angle, you may feel more sore in a certain part, but soreness does not equal growth. Soreness only means that the muscle is sore.

  16. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtremeAnabolic
    Soreness only means that the muscle is sore.
    i'm not an ex sci major and i don't have a background in this stuff beyond forums (well, beyond these specific forums, actually.) *BUT*, what do you mean soreness only means the muscle is sore? wasn't it pretty much accepted on this page of the thread that the soreness creates the cascade of stuff that causes the growth?

    i'm not arguing that the pain felt is what is causing growth, but rather the stress that causes growth causes soreness. i must be missing something here, i still don't get why i can hurt one part of the muscle more than the other part, yet i can't put a little more emphasis on that part in terms of hypertrophy.

    i can't see how i can stress it in a way that hurts it by doing inclines, but i cannot stress it in a way that gives it a little bit more hypertrophy than the rest. (sorry belial, i have read and re-read your posts. i still don't get it. as i said, i don't have a background beyond these very boards, so if you don't mind explaining further, liike you were talking to a person who didn't know their ass from their elbow, i'm sure you could get me to understand, but for the life of me i can't see why i can emphasize stress on a certain part through a lift, but i cannot emphasize hypertrophy. from my pov the same thigns that cause the stress cause the hypertrophy. i am not saying i think you need to be sore to hypertrophy (haha can that be used as a verb?) a muscle, but as far as i can understand, if i cannot emphasize a part of the chest in regards to muscle, how am i emphasizing it in terms of soreness?

  17. #92
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtremeAnabolic
    Just because you may be able to place more emphasis on a part of a muscle, that does not make that part grow faster. The muscle grows as a whole. Due to the angle, you may feel more sore in a certain part, but soreness does not equal growth. Soreness only means that the muscle is sore.
    that seems to be a new tidbit of info there to me.

    are you saying that i CAN lift in a way that makes my upper chest work harder than the lower part, but that my body can only rebuild the thing as a whole, so even though my upper chest did more work moving the weight than my lower, they both get repaired equally? taht isn't making sense to me either.

  18. #93
    Wrecker of Homes d'Anconia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    5,974
    I was under the impression that we already agreed that your upper chest didn't grow more than your lower chest.
    ...........||High School||.....||July '05||.......||January '09||
    Bench.........225x1...............275x1.................?
    Squat...........?.......................?....................365x5
    Deadlift........?.....................315x5...............435x5
    Weight........180...................192...................185
    BF%.............?......................12.....................12
    Time to Get Ripped
    Pictures of Me

  19. #94
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by fatrb38
    I was under the impression that we already agreed that your upper chest didn't grow more than your lower chest.
    nah i still think it did... i was kind of confused w/ some of your stuff too, we don't communicate too well i guess....

  20. #95
    3:16
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by jazer80
    i'm not an ex sci major and i don't have a background in this stuff beyond forums (well, beyond these specific forums, actually.) *BUT*, what do you mean soreness only means the muscle is sore? wasn't it pretty much accepted on this page of the thread that the soreness creates the cascade of stuff that causes the growth?

    the word they used was "damage" and not "soarness".

    they are different. you can damage the muscle but does not mean it will be soar.
    ALso you can say do 100 sets of squats. your legs will be very soar. but does not mean they will grow as well.
    so what extreme is saying. do not gauge how good a workout is by how soar a muscle is.

    though for some people to grow optimaly. they have to trian with X amount of intensity that results in them be soar for a productive workout. However is a side effect of training hard, rather than the cause of there growth.
    my exprience - joined gym 10 years ago, 6 1/2 years hard weight training exprience.

  21. #96
    Senior Member Meat_Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,315
    Soreness is a result of damage. Damage is a result of a good workout(assuming you aren't used to the workout).

    What's up with the soreness hate?
    Last edited by Meat_Head; 03-30-2006 at 01:31 PM.
    Squat...Eat...Sleep...Grow...Repeat

  22. #97
    Baby Seal Clubber ElPietro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    12,778
    Quote Originally Posted by xMeat_Headx
    Soreness is a result of damage. Damage is a result of a good workout(assuming you aren't used to the workout).
    This is a pointless statement, because you could replace soreness with "lack of soreness" and the statement would still be applicable. So ultimately, soreness is something you endure, but other than that, is relatively meaningless.
    Deadlifts are like women, they'll hurt you everytime, but they'll also make you a man. - Me

    Friends don't let friends do dumbell kickbacks. - Me

    ElP is the smartest man in the world. - Gyno Rhino

    A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls. -- Dan Quayle

    If do right, no can defense. -- Mr. Miyagi

    Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey:

    I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

    Is there anything more beautiful than a beautiful, beautiful flamingo, flying across in front of a beautiful sunset? And he's carrying a beautiful rose in his beak, and also he's carrying a very beautiful painting with his feet. And also, you're drunk.

    Current FFFA Enforcer

  23. #98
    Senior Member Meat_Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,315
    Quote Originally Posted by ElPietro
    This is a pointless statement, because you could replace soreness with "lack of soreness" and the statement would still be applicable. So ultimately, soreness is something you endure, but other than that, is relatively meaningless.
    You could NOT replace it with "lack of soreness" unless you are used to the workout/intensity/exercises.

    If you start a new routine, and its a good routine for size and strength, it WILL make you sore for at least the first few workouts. That is why I think soreness is important for gaging the effectiveness of a workout when beginning a new routine.
    Squat...Eat...Sleep...Grow...Repeat

  24. #99
    Baby Seal Clubber ElPietro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    12,778
    Uh, even if it's a bad routine you are going to be sore so I don't see the point.

    I can leg press all the time and will always be sore after. I can bench once in a blue moon and not be sore. Some muscles/areas react differently.

    So if you want to use it as a gauge for your first few workouts, which I can't really see the big deal in it fine, but it's still not indicative of a "good" workout.

    Also, I can make some significant changes to parts of my routine and garner no added or lessened soreness. So my point is no, it's not something you should be concerned with, because it has virtually no meaning or carry over between different muscle groups.
    Deadlifts are like women, they'll hurt you everytime, but they'll also make you a man. - Me

    Friends don't let friends do dumbell kickbacks. - Me

    ElP is the smartest man in the world. - Gyno Rhino

    A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls. -- Dan Quayle

    If do right, no can defense. -- Mr. Miyagi

    Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey:

    I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

    Is there anything more beautiful than a beautiful, beautiful flamingo, flying across in front of a beautiful sunset? And he's carrying a beautiful rose in his beak, and also he's carrying a very beautiful painting with his feet. And also, you're drunk.

    Current FFFA Enforcer

  25. #100
    Senior Member Meat_Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,315
    I agree, a set of 200 reps can make you sore. But the fact still remains that a good weightlifting workout that you aren't used to will ALSO get you sore.
    Squat...Eat...Sleep...Grow...Repeat

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •